Just thought to share a word or two about the way the names of some of the people listed on here has been upvoted or downvoted.
Whether or not someone is a "good" or a "bad" attorney to work with is partly objective and partly subjective. Some objective parameters that are material to this assessment include how knowledgeable and articulate the relevant attorney is. The subjective parameters vary to an extent, depending on whether the reviewing person is a report to the relevant attorney, or is the manager to whom the relevant attorney reports. A junior colleague might rate his more senior SA/PA as "good" based on parameters such as how clear his/her instructions are, or how willing he/she is to help the junior colleague perform the tasks assigned to him/her particularly in the face of tight timelines to which the junior is unacclimated, or unfamiliar territory (e.g., during an employment law diligence by a corporate law A1/A2, or finding sectoral laws for a memo on structuring and what not). A senior colleague might rate an SA/PA in his/her team on parameters such as being able to drive the deal while preserving (to the maximum extent possible), the morale of the juniors, etc. Also worth noting, even the sort of SA/PAs that some might regard as generally amicable to work with, or collegial, might be found to be incredibly difficult to work with by others. For example (and note that it is just that), a SA/PA who tends to be a perfectionist might not be well liked by a junior who is not attentive to detail (either for want of ability or the desire to churn out well put together drafts) and might easily be labeled as hard to work with. It is very possible for disgruntled juniors and seniors to project issues arising from their own inadequacies (especially when the contrast is immediately apparent) onto their colleagues (and needless to say, this applies in the converse as well) because it is far easier psychologically to brand someone as difficult to work with, than introspect on whether that is generally true, or particularized to a given person (or set of persons).
Bottomline: it is not a simple answer, and classifications of "good" or "bad" without the proper context are not very helpful, and therefore, must be viewed with some skepticism. During my time working as an attorney, I have had both the pleasure of working with, and being mentored by some incredible SA/PAs, as well as working with and being treated really badly by some (the latter being individuals that I believe to be truly bad human beings, despite being exceptional attorneys -- a correlation that is all too pervasive in this profession). With all that being said, it is crucial to note that subjective indicia in these sort of online forums by far take precedence and not much thought is given to the implications of listing out a person's name this way. I feel disheartened to see colleagues (many of whom I don't know) have their names downvoted by tens and more of people in what appears to be a lamentable mud-slinging exercise permitted by LI.
To clarify, it is not my suggestion that these downvotes are necessarily incorrect; they might very well have (more than) an iota of truth to them, but it is worth trying to view them against the backdrop of the context I've hoped to provide.
Whether or not someone is a "good" or a "bad" attorney to work with is partly objective and partly subjective. Some objective parameters that are material to this assessment include how knowledgeable and articulate the relevant attorney is. The subjective parameters vary to an extent, depending on whether the reviewing person is a report to the relevant attorney, or is the manager to whom the relevant attorney reports. A junior colleague might rate his more senior SA/PA as "good" based on parameters such as how clear his/her instructions are, or how willing he/she is to help the junior colleague perform the tasks assigned to him/her particularly in the face of tight timelines to which the junior is unacclimated, or unfamiliar territory (e.g., during an employment law diligence by a corporate law A1/A2, or finding sectoral laws for a memo on structuring and what not). A senior colleague might rate an SA/PA in his/her team on parameters such as being able to drive the deal while preserving (to the maximum extent possible), the morale of the juniors, etc. Also worth noting, even the sort of SA/PAs that some might regard as generally amicable to work with, or collegial, might be found to be incredibly difficult to work with by others. For example (and note that it is just that), a SA/PA who tends to be a perfectionist might not be well liked by a junior who is not attentive to detail (either for want of ability or the desire to churn out well put together drafts) and might easily be labeled as hard to work with. It is very possible for disgruntled juniors and seniors to project issues arising from their own inadequacies (especially when the contrast is immediately apparent) onto their colleagues (and needless to say, this applies in the converse as well) because it is far easier psychologically to brand someone as difficult to work with, than introspect on whether that is generally true, or particularized to a given person (or set of persons).
Bottomline: it is not a simple answer, and classifications of "good" or "bad" without the proper context are not very helpful, and therefore, must be viewed with some skepticism. During my time working as an attorney, I have had both the pleasure of working with, and being mentored by some incredible SA/PAs, as well as working with and being treated really badly by some (the latter being individuals that I believe to be truly bad human beings, despite being exceptional attorneys -- a correlation that is all too pervasive in this profession). With all that being said, it is crucial to note that subjective indicia in these sort of online forums by far take precedence and not much thought is given to the implications of listing out a person's name this way. I feel disheartened to see colleagues (many of whom I don't know) have their names downvoted by tens and more of people in what appears to be a lamentable mud-slinging exercise permitted by LI.
To clarify, it is not my suggestion that these downvotes are necessarily incorrect; they might very well have (more than) an iota of truth to them, but it is worth trying to view them against the backdrop of the context I've hoped to provide.